Several years ago, a friend of mine, Simone Richardson, a teacher and wife of a Presbyterian minister, wrote a great post on God Gave Christianity a Feminine Feel.
I don’t think we should pit one against the other at all. This seems to try to equalize femininity with masculinity by trouncing on masculinity. My oldest son is by nature very “traditionally masculine”. My youngest son is the complete opposite. This article seems to imply that Jesus would be against my oldest son which I think is completely false. He is for both.
Does this essay deconstruct itself, it appears on surface reading to undermine 'mSculine Chrustianity' with its masculine hierachy. Yet there are phrases about female/wifely 'obedient'submission to husband, nothing about mutual submission which is present in Ephesians. Jacob may have been 'bookush' (when was that a purely feminine attribute in the biblical context, scribes were surely predominantly male?). He was also very much a trickster archetype and as an alpha male accumulated wealth and prestige. Similarly David, both of them complex and flawed characters used by God in the furtherance of his kingdom. Rahab was a successful inn keeper/possibly prostitute also with trickster flaws. All appear in the geneogy of Jesus for a good reason. Perhaps we are seen a reversal of patriarchy in church but this post does little to encourage it.
My apologies for typos, wearing the wrong glasses is my excuse. But it points to the fact that looking through the wrong lens aka post modern perspective causes errors which are only apparent when viewed in the context of the whole text.
I would correct this to say that we are to follow Jesus example in this. He isn’t the alpha, behaving as a fallen human would exhibit “alpha”. He is the Alpha showing us what God’s character is. “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus, who being in very nature, God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped….”
Also, why are we attaching gender to the Alpha Beta dynamic?
This is an example of what happens to our interpretation of the Scriptures when Christians allow themselves to be influenced by worldly philosophies and ideologies on sex, gender, feminism, and patriarchalism.
Servitude in ancient times was not a male or female task. It was not masculine nor feminine. Male servants had tasks designed for male and female servants had their own tasks designed for women, based on their well defined social roles. Women were happy doing their womanly things and so were the males doing their manly stuff.
Our modern way of life has eliminated such defined roles. However, when it comes to submission, the Bible calls everyone to “submit to one another”, “wifes to submit to their husbands as they submit to the Lord”, and “husbands to die to themselves, like Christ, so they can truly love their wives.”
The problem I see is that women don’t want to submit and men don’t want to die to themselves. True submission to God happens when both men and women fulfill their respective given call to submit and to die.
Do your research. Besides, what makes you think they weren’t? Your question proves my point: Christians today interpret the Scriptures through the lens of modern worldviews and philosophical ideologies rather rather than its original context.
Well Ms CynthiaW, let me provide you with Proverbs 31 as an example of how women were praised and revered by her husband, children, and her community by fulfilling an important role as a women while men do whatever men were supposed to do. She held a place of honor.
God gave the task to both, a man and a woman to rule the earth, to be fruitful and fill the earth. They both share that important role, neither of them is more important than the other. The ancients understood that.
I think you should research ancient societies in biblical times to understand how each member of the household were to given an important role. Please take into account that those societies were collective societies rather that individualistic oriented societies like ours in the west and in many other parts of the modern world. Their worldview and understanding of familial functions were very different and also very well defined.
So, going back to my original post. The problem starts with interpreting the Bible through the lens of modern ideologies and concepts rather than trying to understand what the original author meant and how the original audience understood it based on their general context.
For instance, the slave holders in America used the Bible’s passages about slaves and masters to validate their slave holding. Every time the Bible is used like that it creates more problems than rightful living.
I think feminists may have a good intention when interpreting the Scripture through the lens of feminism. However, I believe they miss the whole point of the scriptures. In a collective society roles are very important and people are not supposed to do things outside their given social roles because it disrupts the well-being of the whole collectivity.
In collective societies the goal is the common good rather than the individual fulfillment. This concept is a bit hard for modern individualistic societies to understand. So for instance, when the Bible talks about men behavior or women behavior, it does so within the frame of collectivism and the roles the each member of the collective has. So, such modern ideas like patriarchalism and feminism are foreign to the people in biblical times.
That’s the reason behind my point which you challenged. Both men and female enjoyed given roles within their collective society and each one of them were happy to fulfill those roles because their focus was the good of the whole rather than individual fulfillment. And, basically, individual fulfillment was achieved by maintaining the balance of the collective through the exercise of each person’s roles.
People who were faithful to their roles were always held in great esteem. But those who did otherwise experience shame and shunning.
Thanks for sharing that perspective. I recall a mission's trip to Mexico in 1994 I shared from within a building with the women and children while the men did not enter the building but looked through the windows. These men saw Christianity as "feminine" and weak but were strangely attracted to it. The reality, of course, is that the strength of Christianity is from God and that strength is uniquely revealed in both submissive men and submissive women.
The Church is the "Bride of Christ," but it is also the "Body of Christ."
There may be feminine allusions in some teachings and examples, but I doubt it was considered feminine or submissive to knock over tables and beat the vendors with a rope-whip. I'm not aware of women normally serving as soldiers back then, so the military references ("weapons of our warfare," "full armor of God," "armor of light," "weapons of righteousness," "soldiers in active service," etc. hardly convey a "feminine" message.
I don’t think we should pit one against the other at all. This seems to try to equalize femininity with masculinity by trouncing on masculinity. My oldest son is by nature very “traditionally masculine”. My youngest son is the complete opposite. This article seems to imply that Jesus would be against my oldest son which I think is completely false. He is for both.
Does this essay deconstruct itself, it appears on surface reading to undermine 'mSculine Chrustianity' with its masculine hierachy. Yet there are phrases about female/wifely 'obedient'submission to husband, nothing about mutual submission which is present in Ephesians. Jacob may have been 'bookush' (when was that a purely feminine attribute in the biblical context, scribes were surely predominantly male?). He was also very much a trickster archetype and as an alpha male accumulated wealth and prestige. Similarly David, both of them complex and flawed characters used by God in the furtherance of his kingdom. Rahab was a successful inn keeper/possibly prostitute also with trickster flaws. All appear in the geneogy of Jesus for a good reason. Perhaps we are seen a reversal of patriarchy in church but this post does little to encourage it.
Nice catch on the "wifely submission" thing.
My apologies for typos, wearing the wrong glasses is my excuse. But it points to the fact that looking through the wrong lens aka post modern perspective causes errors which are only apparent when viewed in the context of the whole text.
I agree. The quoted section was rife with stereotypes.
And "bookish Jacob"? Where in the Bible is there one word about Jacob reading?
I would correct this to say that we are to follow Jesus example in this. He isn’t the alpha, behaving as a fallen human would exhibit “alpha”. He is the Alpha showing us what God’s character is. “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus, who being in very nature, God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped….”
Also, why are we attaching gender to the Alpha Beta dynamic?
Couldn't we also say that Christianity has a masculine feel, since we all - even women - become sons and heirs of God?
Perhaps God sent a Son, rather than a Daughter, because a Daughter’s behavior might presented as less of a contrast to other womens’.
This is an example of what happens to our interpretation of the Scriptures when Christians allow themselves to be influenced by worldly philosophies and ideologies on sex, gender, feminism, and patriarchalism.
Servitude in ancient times was not a male or female task. It was not masculine nor feminine. Male servants had tasks designed for male and female servants had their own tasks designed for women, based on their well defined social roles. Women were happy doing their womanly things and so were the males doing their manly stuff.
Our modern way of life has eliminated such defined roles. However, when it comes to submission, the Bible calls everyone to “submit to one another”, “wifes to submit to their husbands as they submit to the Lord”, and “husbands to die to themselves, like Christ, so they can truly love their wives.”
The problem I see is that women don’t want to submit and men don’t want to die to themselves. True submission to God happens when both men and women fulfill their respective given call to submit and to die.
"Women were happy doing their womanly things and so were the males doing their manly stuff."
How do you know?
Do your research. Besides, what makes you think they weren’t? Your question proves my point: Christians today interpret the Scriptures through the lens of modern worldviews and philosophical ideologies rather rather than its original context.
"Women were happy doing their womanly things and so were the males doing their manly stuff."
Where is that in the Bible, exactly?
I think all sweeping generalizations about whole classes of people are unhelpful.
Well Ms CynthiaW, let me provide you with Proverbs 31 as an example of how women were praised and revered by her husband, children, and her community by fulfilling an important role as a women while men do whatever men were supposed to do. She held a place of honor.
God gave the task to both, a man and a woman to rule the earth, to be fruitful and fill the earth. They both share that important role, neither of them is more important than the other. The ancients understood that.
I think you should research ancient societies in biblical times to understand how each member of the household were to given an important role. Please take into account that those societies were collective societies rather that individualistic oriented societies like ours in the west and in many other parts of the modern world. Their worldview and understanding of familial functions were very different and also very well defined.
So, going back to my original post. The problem starts with interpreting the Bible through the lens of modern ideologies and concepts rather than trying to understand what the original author meant and how the original audience understood it based on their general context.
For instance, the slave holders in America used the Bible’s passages about slaves and masters to validate their slave holding. Every time the Bible is used like that it creates more problems than rightful living.
I think feminists may have a good intention when interpreting the Scripture through the lens of feminism. However, I believe they miss the whole point of the scriptures. In a collective society roles are very important and people are not supposed to do things outside their given social roles because it disrupts the well-being of the whole collectivity.
In collective societies the goal is the common good rather than the individual fulfillment. This concept is a bit hard for modern individualistic societies to understand. So for instance, when the Bible talks about men behavior or women behavior, it does so within the frame of collectivism and the roles the each member of the collective has. So, such modern ideas like patriarchalism and feminism are foreign to the people in biblical times.
That’s the reason behind my point which you challenged. Both men and female enjoyed given roles within their collective society and each one of them were happy to fulfill those roles because their focus was the good of the whole rather than individual fulfillment. And, basically, individual fulfillment was achieved by maintaining the balance of the collective through the exercise of each person’s roles.
People who were faithful to their roles were always held in great esteem. But those who did otherwise experience shame and shunning.
This seems like a discussion that's going nowhere with a person who has an agenda that isn't at all clear to me but I'm sure makes sense to them.
Merry Christmas, and have a nice day.
Peace to you from the Father of peace. Amen.
Thanks for sharing that perspective. I recall a mission's trip to Mexico in 1994 I shared from within a building with the women and children while the men did not enter the building but looked through the windows. These men saw Christianity as "feminine" and weak but were strangely attracted to it. The reality, of course, is that the strength of Christianity is from God and that strength is uniquely revealed in both submissive men and submissive women.
Both extremes are stupid.
The Church is the "Bride of Christ," but it is also the "Body of Christ."
There may be feminine allusions in some teachings and examples, but I doubt it was considered feminine or submissive to knock over tables and beat the vendors with a rope-whip. I'm not aware of women normally serving as soldiers back then, so the military references ("weapons of our warfare," "full armor of God," "armor of light," "weapons of righteousness," "soldiers in active service," etc. hardly convey a "feminine" message.